I'd have less of a problem with the whole software as a service concept from Adobe if they were rock solid reliable. I've had a couple of times when, because of technical glitches on their end, an Adobe app wanted to phone home to validate the license and because "home" wasn't responding, screwed up my work for several hours. There've been four different Photoshop CS releases that were total horror shows in various ways - destroyed all your presets; wouldn't run if you had ever had a previous version of Photoshop installed on your computer, even if it wasn't installed now; one release even boogered up only those people who'd subscribed during the first release, but not those who began to subscribe in later releases.

Dreading the day I'm in someplace like a rural village in Cuba where there's no network, and Lightroom or Photoshop refuse to work because they can't phone home.

Annoyed to have to be testing alternatives. But I can't rely on Adobe.

J A C S: I disagree with the conclusion that this camera can sometimes catch up with dSLRS in low light, etc. The resolution is so far behind dSLRs, I am talking about 20-24mp dSLRs only, that even some mirror shock would get you better resolution than this camera on a steady tripod. I just snapped a few shots at 1/15 sec at 200mm with my 21mp FF, one of those crops is in my gallery.

Also, fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed, but they are really fast by 1" standards. All decent f/4 zooms have IS and they collect more light than the lens of this camera even at its widest (and fastest) setting. They are much sharper, as well.

If both cameras are shooting an image that's within the compromise envelope of the camera most compromised in the given situation, you won't be able to tell the difference. For example, at high ISO the small sensor camera is going to have more issues than a full frame DSLR. Same thing for dynamic range, raw bit depth, and so on.

But, more important - the shots I got with the RX100, because it was right there in my pocket when the incredible light happened, or a great moment between two people happened, I wouldn't have gotten with a DSLR. You can't get the shot without a camera, and I don't have room for a D800E with a 24-70 in my work backpack. Much less in my jacket pocket.

This camera's bundle of compromises are optimized for always being in your pocket, and still being good enough for a wide range of situations. And on many fronts, probably kicks daylights out of the D2X that was state of the art not that long ago.

J A C S: I disagree with the conclusion that this camera can sometimes catch up with dSLRS in low light, etc. The resolution is so far behind dSLRs, I am talking about 20-24mp dSLRs only, that even some mirror shock would get you better resolution than this camera on a steady tripod. I just snapped a few shots at 1/15 sec at 200mm with my 21mp FF, one of those crops is in my gallery.

Also, fast primes on FF do not have IS, indeed, but they are really fast by 1" standards. All decent f/4 zooms have IS and they collect more light than the lens of this camera even at its widest (and fastest) setting. They are much sharper, as well.

Every camera made is a bundle of compromises where the designers made decisions about which compromises were worth making, given the rationale for the camera. No camera can be the best at or do everything. I suspect this camera's reason for existence has nothing to do with shooting products in studio, fashion for Vogue, or 30x40 inch landscape prints, which is the gist of your arguments. But it's not designed as a DSLR replacement. For a camera that's small enough that it can always be in your pocket (my first generation RX100 pretty much lived in my sports jacket pocket) it's an astonishingly good set of capabilities.

I gifted my first gen camera to a young aspiring photographer, and have been shooting a GM5 with a couple of light primes instead. As much as I like the results, it's not as easy to carry as the RX100. I suspect Sony's going to get some money from me soon.

At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...

If TRK lives anywhere in the NYC vicinity, I invite him to come by and show me how bad m4/3 is. I'll print up 25 images with my Canon 8300 printer shot in the same locations with a D700 and m4/3, printed as large as possible on 20x30 sheets, and 25 from a D800E and m4/3, printed on 20x30 sheets. All cropped to the same aspect ratios so that won't be telltale. If he's able to correctly ID 80% of the m4/3 images, I'll give him $100. Cash.

These will be images that won top awards in ASMP juried shows, juried shows in several DUMBO galleries, and that I print and sell at large print sizes. Not snapshots.

I've done this at shows where people talking with me tell me how crappy m4/3 images are... my show catalog portrait shows me shooting with a D800E so they don't realize how many of my images are shot m4/3... and so far, $0 have changed hands.

SeeRoy: " 100-300mm F4-5.6 will not be compatible with the system"How very considerate of Panasonic toward their existing customers. I own this lens so I'll be sticking with Olympus, thanks.

When cameras and lenses were mostly mechanical, it was much easier to maintain backward compatibility. Even in the DSLR world, where I have a couple lenses from the early 1970s that I use, backward compatibility has started to slip. No in camera AF motors on the lower end bodies. And on the higher end bodies, the motors aren't as strong.

I'm really curious, maybe doubting, that the dance between lens IS and sensor IS will work well. Very heavy computational problem. With the next bump in sensor density, I think we'll see that the IS is good, but not as good as a rock solid mounting point. Can see that in the 36mp and more DSLRs - IS can get you a usable image (particularly if you downsample to half sensor pixels) but not a critically sharp image. That's working with just one moving component. With two - well, I hope I'm wrong in doubting.

Dear DPReview - please fix the transitional fade in fade out stuff on these showcases. Even on the fastest internet Comcast offers (which tells me it's your servers, not Comcast) the first 3-5 seconds of every new image had the shadow of the previous image over it. Kind of ruins the gallery click through experience because it begins each image with a chaotic dogs' breakfast, that undercuts the impact of a great image. Something other than fades perhaps, because photography like you showcase deserves better.

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

And incidentally - you think that it's all photoshop, then you really didn't look very closely at the images. There's a tremendous amount of lighting artistry there that you can't photoshop. I see a ton of composite images (as do you, every day, in every ad you encounter) and most of them are awful - no consistency of light direction, intensity, hardness, distance. Poor proportionality. The amount of planning that's required to make an image like the ones here is pretty high. Not quite Crewdson but getting there. If you don't know that, then you really have never tried. Kind of like the people who say "my kid can do the same kind of art as Picasso."

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

So of course none of you think Ansel Adams was any good, because some of his pictures required 30-40 minutes of burning, dodging, regional contrast adjustments, and creation of unsharp masks. (oh those pesky registration pins... I actually still know how to do that.)

Really, saying that only people who do no manipulation of an image other than color, contrast, hue, tone, tonal contrast, clarity, saturation, white balance, noise reduction, detail control... and I'm only halfway through what Nat Geo allows (anything but cloning to add or remove objects) are photographers? That's an awful lot of manipulation, btw.

Kind of like saying the only chefs are those who cook the single cuisine you like. What a dull world that would be.

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

Photojournalism is only a tiny fraction of photography as a discipline. And a dying one. Many newspapers have fired their photographers, issued their reporters iPhones, and called that brilliant.

Excellent concepts, very well executed. Particularly well done to have gotten the lighting for both him, and for the scene, to be so consistent. That can't be done well just in Photoshop.

As to "it's not photography if you manipulate an image" critics - the amount of post-processing done in darkroom by a lot of the photographers those same people idolize would surprise them. Composite images have been done since the 1800s, with some of the most spectacular examples being Jerry Uelsmann's work. I'll agree with "it's not photo-journalism" if it's manipulated, but "not photography" would eliminate about 3/4 of photographers throughout the history of the art.

If you've cropped an image, you're already down the slippery slope. My photographic mentor used to demand to see original negatives and files and was very critical if you had to do any cropping for any reason. He may be the only person I know who's not been down that slope.

Nathan Cowlishaw: It's art but there's a fine line between photography and the digital painting and manipulation. I could see this taking off in a graphic arts publication but this is digital imaging in the realm of complete manipulation. Imagine a photojournalist trying to pass this off. In it's context, it's art much like painting and so is photography but there has to be drawn an ethical line between what is photography and what's not so much...

Think about it.

So, Jerry Uelsmann, who never used photoshop, wasn't doing photography? I think that line is a very artificial one other than for photo journalism. The amount of cropping, burning, dodging, white balance adjustment, sharpening, done by most people who say there's a line really says that there's an imaginary line. My mentor stays true to that line - he shoots jpg, because he says if you get it right in camera, you don't need raw. He's embarrassed by the four images in his recent book that were cropped and not printed full frame (out of about 140 images.) With lifetime achievement awards from every major photographic and advertising organization out there, he must be pretty good at what he does, and he may be the ONLY photographer I know who actually hews to that bright line of no editing.

Ednaz: Bringing out a new system camera, and only offering it with kit lenses and not without a lens, is a poke in the eye to customers who own that camera maker's cameras and lenses. I have a set of 8 excellent Panasonic lenses that get a lot of use. The 14-42 I got with my G3 sits in my dry cabinet doing nothing.

I'd sure love to update my G6 to a G7, but instead I'll wait and see if they offer it body only. If they don't I'll just keep shooting my G6, or buy a body-only from Olympus. Olympus understands.

Really, Panasonic - treat your current customers with a little more respect. Make it easy for me to open my wallet.

Sorry, bad typing, I was referring to the GX7, not G7. Too many bodies with a G and a 7. On the GX7 camera info page on DPReview, you'll see links at the bottom to a couple different options to purchase from Amazon. The G7 is NOT available body only. The GX7 wasn't available body only initially, which is why I happen to own that second 14-42 lens, one of my m4/3 bodies expired and I needed that second body. Their pattern for cameras other than the GH series has been, "want this body, you gotta take another lens you don't want" for awhile, going to body only after the camera's been out awhile.

I've pinged Panasonic on multiple social media channels scolding them for treating current customers who've bought a lot of their lenses badly by forcing a kit lens on us if we want to upgrade. If a few thousand people did that, maybe something would happen.

I'm also going to a product presentation they're doing at my local camera store to complain in person.

Ednaz: Bringing out a new system camera, and only offering it with kit lenses and not without a lens, is a poke in the eye to customers who own that camera maker's cameras and lenses. I have a set of 8 excellent Panasonic lenses that get a lot of use. The 14-42 I got with my G3 sits in my dry cabinet doing nothing.

I'd sure love to update my G6 to a G7, but instead I'll wait and see if they offer it body only. If they don't I'll just keep shooting my G6, or buy a body-only from Olympus. Olympus understands.

Really, Panasonic - treat your current customers with a little more respect. Make it easy for me to open my wallet.

Francis - the G7 is available body only. They do that after they work through the initial interest.

Bringing out a new system camera, and only offering it with kit lenses and not without a lens, is a poke in the eye to customers who own that camera maker's cameras and lenses. I have a set of 8 excellent Panasonic lenses that get a lot of use. The 14-42 I got with my G3 sits in my dry cabinet doing nothing.

I'd sure love to update my G6 to a G7, but instead I'll wait and see if they offer it body only. If they don't I'll just keep shooting my G6, or buy a body-only from Olympus. Olympus understands.

Really, Panasonic - treat your current customers with a little more respect. Make it easy for me to open my wallet.

In the effort to make viewfinders brighter in DSLRs, the camera companies have messed up the ability for manually focusing wide aperture lenses. No split target, no fresnel, just the best your eyes can see on a plain ground glass. I've seen some analysis for Canon and Nikon DSLRs a couple years ago that showed that wider than f2.8, your hit rate for perfect focus on the exact point you want declined rapidly as you got wider. It's been one of the things that's driven some street shooting professionals I know to mirrorless. They used to be able to manually focus wide lenses pretty fast and accurately with split target focusing screens, but can't do that with DSLRs. Can do with a Fuji XT-1.

Everyone plays fast and loose with the term "macro". It has a very specific meaning for a very specific set of capabilities in the optics world, but once marketing gets going, not so much. Many lenses tagged as macro over time didn't get to 1:1 - the medium format macro lenses for Bronica, legacy Hasselblad, those kinds of bodies, tended to need tubes to get to 1:1 and sometimes not even then. Fuji's macro lens only gets to .5X without tubes.

I used to have a 19mm macro-nikkor - made for a nikon multiphot, and adapted to bellows. Fun perspectives, but with bellows involved, not very easy to work with. This lens may go on my list, looking at the images they've offered here, it's in line with what I used to try to do (only sometimes successfully) with that old Nikkor.

Ednaz: After renting a Sony SLR for a few days and post processing and printing some of the images, I was convinced that 11 bit raw wasn't enough and Sony wasn't on my list. It's OK for point and shoot, but that's a small fraction of my shooting.

I've been trying to lose the Nikon size and weight for years, which is why I tried the Sony bodies. Nikon gets fantastic 14 bit files off some of the Sony sensors, so it's mysterious why Sony isn't doing it, unless it's to manage noise better.

And to you all, I'm not trolling. I do take this as seriously as Sony does, though - they know they need to get this right. But, I shoot some of my client work with micro 4/3, which is 12 bit raw, and Fuji, which is 14 bit, when they'll do the job. I rent medium format when it's needed.

You are correct about only a small % of people would need or see the difference. 8 bit jpg is more than sufficient for the vast majority of what anyone shoots. But raw and bigger bit depths exist for those small % situations.

Ednaz: After renting a Sony SLR for a few days and post processing and printing some of the images, I was convinced that 11 bit raw wasn't enough and Sony wasn't on my list. It's OK for point and shoot, but that's a small fraction of my shooting.

Some of my favorite photographers, including one of my mentors, shoot jpg, not even raw. For the subjects they shoot, 8 bits per channel work just fine. Things like bit depth, raw versus jpg, high ISO abilities, are valuable at the margins, not in the main things that most people shoot. My Canon iPF 8400 prints at 8 bits or 16 bits, and with the right papers, printing the same image with the two different drivers shows the difference spectacularly well.